Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
J Infect ; 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778315

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 µg) or BNT (30 µg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 µg) versus BNT (30 µg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses.

2.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-332455

ABSTRACT

Background: Many high-income countries have deployed third “booster” doses of COVID-19 vaccines to populations and some countries have started offering fourth doses. Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase II trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines as third dose boosters. The current study invited participants who received BNT162b2 (BNT) as third dose in COV-BOOST to be randomised to receive a fourth dose of BNT or mRNA1273 (50 µg, half-m1273). The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. Results: Between 11 and 25 January 2022, 166 participants in the original BNT arm were randomised and received a fourth dose vaccine. The median age was 70.1 (interquartile range: 51.6-77.5) years with 51.8 % (n=86) female participants. The median interval between third and fourth dose was 208.5 (interquartile range: 203.25-214.75) days.Pain and fatigue were the most common local and systemic solicited adverse events for BNT and half-m1273. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose were related to study vaccine.The fold rises in anti-spike IgG pre- and post-fourth dose were 12.19 (95%CI: 10.37-14.32) and 15.90 (95%CI: 12.92-19.58) in BNT and half-m1273 arms respectively, with fold changes compared to the post third dose-peak of 1.59 (95%CI: 1.41-1.78) and 2.19 (95%CI: 1.90-2.52). T cell responses also boosted. Conclusions: Fourth dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well-tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity up to, and beyond peak levels achieved following third dose boosters (ISRCTN: 73765130).

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319221

ABSTRACT

Summary: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19.Methods: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0·1-10·0mg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays.Findings: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p<0·001), ranging from 8% to 61% in ELISA and 46% to 87% in the immunoblot assay.Concurrent anti-S IgG ranged from GM concentration (95% CI) 74 (45-119) at 0·1mg to 1023 (468-2236) ng/ml at 5·0mg (p<0·001) and was not higher at 10·0mg. Neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 by participant sera was measurable in 15-48% depending on dose level received.Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA is safe for clinical development and is immunogenic at low dose levels. Modifications to optimise humoral responses are required to realise its potential as an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.Trial Registration: (ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20)Funding Statement: Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076 and MC_UU_12023/23), National Institute for Health Research, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust.Declaration of Interests: P.F.M. and R.J.S. are co-inventors on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 saRNA vaccine. All other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the North East - York Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SC/0145).

4.
EClinicalMedicine ; 44: 101262, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1620636

ABSTRACT

Background: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19. Methods: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK, between 19th June to 28th October 2020. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0.1-10.0µg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). Findings: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p<0.001), ranging from 8% (3/39; 0.1µg) to 61% (14/23; 10.0µg) in ELISA and 46% (18/39; 0.3µg) to 87% (20/23; 5.0µg and 10.0µg) in a post-hoc immunoblot assay. Geometric mean (GM) anti-S IgG concentrations ranged from 74 (95% CI, 45-119) at 0.1µg to 1023 (468-2236) ng/mL at 5.0µg (p<0.001) and was not higher at 10.0µg. Neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 by participant sera was measurable in 15% (6/39; 0.1µg) to 48% (11/23; 5.0µg) depending on dose level received. Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA is safe for clinical development, is immunogenic at low dose levels but failed to induce 100% seroconversion. Modifications to optimise humoral responses are required to realise its potential as an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was co-funded by grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), and the National Institute Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, Restore the Earth.

5.
Lancet ; 398(10318): 2258-2276, 2021 12 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550152

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
7.
Euro Surveill ; 26(32)2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1357496

ABSTRACT

Most reported cases of human monkeypox occur in Central and West Africa, where the causing virus is endemic. We describe the identification and public health response to an imported case of West African monkeypox from Nigeria to the United Kingdom (UK) in May 2021. Secondary transmission from the index case occurred within the family to another adult and a toddler. Concurrent COVID-19-related control measures upon arrival and at the hospital, facilitated detection and limited the number of potential contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Monkeypox , Adult , Animals , Humans , Monkeypox/diagnosis , Monkeypox/epidemiology , Monkeypox virus , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
8.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(9): 1246-1256, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180123

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emergence of variants with specific mutations in key epitopes in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 raises concerns pertinent to mass vaccination campaigns and use of monoclonal antibodies. We aimed to describe the emergence of the B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC), including virological characteristics and clinical severity in contemporaneous patients with and without the variant. METHODS: In this cohort study, samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR that were collected from Nov 9, 2020, for patients acutely admitted to one of two hospitals on or before Dec 20, 2020, in London, UK, were sequenced and analysed for the presence of VOC-defining mutations. We fitted Poisson regression models to investigate the association between B.1.1.7 infection and severe disease (defined as point 6 or higher on the WHO ordinal scale within 14 days of symptoms or positive test) and death within 28 days of a positive test and did supplementary genomic analyses in a cohort of chronically shedding patients and in a cohort of remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load was compared by proxy, using PCR cycle threshold values and sequencing read depths. FINDINGS: Of 496 patients with samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR and who met inclusion criteria, 341 had samples that could be sequenced. 198 (58%) of 341 had B.1.1.7 infection and 143 (42%) had non-B.1.1.7 infection. We found no evidence of an association between severe disease and death and lineage (B.1.1.7 vs non-B.1.1.7) in unadjusted analyses (prevalence ratio [PR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·72-1·31]), or in analyses adjusted for hospital, sex, age, comorbidities, and ethnicity (adjusted PR 1·02 [0·76-1·38]). We detected no B.1.1.7 VOC-defining mutations in 123 chronically shedding immunocompromised patients or in 32 remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load by proxy was higher in B.1.1.7 samples than in non-B.1.1.7 samples, as measured by cycle threshold value (mean 28·8 [SD 4·7] vs 32·0 [4·8]; p=0·0085) and genomic read depth (1280 [1004] vs 831 [682]; p=0·0011). INTERPRETATION: Emerging evidence exists of increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7, and we found increased virus load by proxy for B.1.1.7 in our data. We did not identify an association of the variant with severe disease in this hospitalised cohort. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, University College London/University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , Genome, Viral , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Severity of Illness Index , Whole Genome Sequencing , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , London , Male , Middle Aged , Phylogeny , United Kingdom , Viral Load , Virus Shedding
9.
J Infect ; 82(6): 276-316, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1131509

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients admitted, discharged and readmitted, due to COVID-19, to a central London acute-care hospital during the second peak, in particular in relation to corticosteroids use. METHODS: We reviewed patients admitted from the community to University College Hospital (UCH) with COVID-19 as their primary diagnosis between 1st-31st December 2020. Re-attendance and readmission data were collected for patients who re-presented within 10 days following discharge. Data were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: 196 patients were admitted from the community with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and discharged alive in December 2020. Corticosteroids were prescribed in hospital for a median of 5 days (IQR 3-8). 20 patients (10.2%) were readmitted within 10 days. 11/20 received corticosteroids in the first admission of which 10 had received 1-3 days of corticosteroids. Readmission rate in those receiving 1-3 days of corticosteroids was 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Most international guidelines have recommended providing up to 10 days of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19 but stopping on discharge. Our findings show shorter courses of corticosteroids during admission are associated with an increased risk of being readmitted and support continuing the course of corticosteroids after hospital discharge monitored in the virtual ward setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Patient Readmission , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Humans , London/epidemiology , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(4): 690-693, 2021 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087709

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause deadly healthcare-associated outbreaks. In a major London teaching hospital, 66 of 435 (15%) COVID-19 inpatient cases between 2 March and 12 April 2020 were definitely or probably hospital-acquired, through varied transmission routes. The case fatality was 36%. Nosocomial infection rates fell following comprehensive infection prevention and control measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , London/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
BMJ Open ; 10(10): e044566, 2020 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-835491

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Eligibility Determination , Female , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Registries/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
12.
Eur Respir J ; 56(6)2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-796596

ABSTRACT

The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses.We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Clinical Deterioration , Hospital Mortality , Models, Theoretical , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis
13.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 2(10): e594-e602, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-726930

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory syndrome, which might contribute to morbidity and mortality. This study explores a specific phenotype of COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation (COV-HI), and its associations with escalation of respiratory support and survival. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive inpatients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to University College London Hospitals and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals in the UK with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of community-acquired infection. Demographic data, laboratory tests, and clinical status were recorded from the day of admission until death or discharge, with a minimum follow-up time of 28 days. We defined COV-HI as a C-reactive protein concentration greater than 150 mg/L or doubling within 24 h from greater than 50 mg/L, or a ferritin concentration greater than 1500 µg/L. Respiratory support was categorised as oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation, and intubation. Initial and repeated measures of hyperinflammation were evaluated in relation to the next-day risk of death or need for escalation of respiratory support (as a combined endpoint), using a multi-level logistic regression model. FINDINGS: We included 269 patients admitted to one of the study hospitals between March 1 and March 31, 2020, among whom 178 (66%) were eligible for escalation of respiratory support and 91 (34%) patients were not eligible. Of the whole cohort, 90 (33%) patients met the COV-HI criteria at admission. Despite having a younger median age and lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, a higher proportion of patients with COV-HI on admission died during follow-up (36 [40%] of 90 patients) compared with the patients without COV-HI on admission (46 [26%] of 179). Among the 178 patients who were eligible for full respiratory support, 65 (37%) met the definition for COV-HI at admission, and 67 (74%) of the 90 patients whose respiratory care was escalated met the criteria by the day of escalation. Meeting the COV-HI criteria was significantly associated with the risk of next-day escalation of respiratory support or death (hazard ratio 2·24 [95% CI 1·62-2·87]) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity. INTERPRETATION: Associations between elevated inflammatory markers, escalation of respiratory support, and survival in people with COVID-19 indicate the existence of a high-risk inflammatory phenotype. COV-HI might be useful to stratify patient groups in trial design. FUNDING: None.

14.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 20(5): e165-e169, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-652106

ABSTRACT

We describe the London community testing programme developed for COVID-19, audit its effectiveness and report patient acceptability and patient adherence to isolation guidance, based upon a survey conducted with participants.Any patients meeting the Public Health England (PHE) case definition for COVID-19 who did not require hospital admission were eligible for community testing. 2,053 patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested in the community between January and March 2020. Of those tested, 75 (3.6%) were positive. 88% of patients that completed a patient survey felt safe and 82% agreed that community testing was preferable to hospital admission. 97% were able to remain within their own home during the isolation period but just 41% were able to reliably isolate from other members of their household.The London community testing programme allowed widespread testing for COVID-19 while minimising patient transport, hospital admissions and staff exposures. Community testing was acceptable to patients and preferable to admission to hospital. Patients were able to reliably isolate in their home but not from household contacts. The authors believe in the importance, feasibility and acceptability of community testing for COVID-19 as a part of a package of interventions to mitigate a second wave of infection.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Community Health Services/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , England , Female , Humans , London , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Program Development , Program Evaluation , Public Health
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL